The dispute arose after Samir Albaidhani shot and injured an officer during a foot chase in April 2025. The Minnehaha County State’s Attorney filed an affidavit and complaint with the Second Circuit Clerk of Courts that included the unredacted names of Officers One and Two. The officers invoked their rights under Article VI, § 29 of the South Dakota Constitution and requested that their names be redacted from public filings.
The circuit court denied the officers’ motion to seal, assuming without deciding that they qualified as victims but concluding that Marsy’s Law does not expressly provide a right to prevent the disclosure of names. The court also determined it lacked the power under South Dakota law to force parties to redact their filings.
The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of Marsy’s Law defines a victim as “a person against whom a crime or delinquent act is committed” and does not exclude law enforcement officers. The court found that officers are “persons” under the constitution and were targets of Albaidhani’s alleged crimes, including attempted first-degree murder and aggravated assault.
The court further held that the circuit court erred in concluding it lacked authority to compel redaction, noting that courts are vested with the power to enforce Marsy’s Law rights. The court rejected a narrow reading of the provision that focused solely on whether a name alone provides physical location details, emphasizing that Marsy’s Law protects information that could be used to locate or harass a victim.
The court concluded that while Marsy’s Law does not grant a categorical right to complete anonymity, a victim’s name or initials qualify as information that could be used to locate or harass the victim. The case was remanded for the circuit court to conduct a balancing test weighing the officers’ rights against the defendant’s and public’s interests.